All I can say is that if they bring the same incredible build and image quality from their new 35 1.4 to this lens, I am completely sold. To call it a huge step up doesn't even do justice to the difference to how amazing the new 35 1.4 is compare to other Sigma lenses I've used and own. It's worth any penny.

What is this lens? I thought they already had a lens that was 120-300 2.8 with OS? I have the 120-300 2.8 non OS and I know there was already a newer version out? I'm very confused....

Same new version with a very few changes...

I think the optical design is the same as the 1st version but they added a focus limiter, which was lacking in the 1st version and made it focus slower than the EF300/2.8L. At least that's what I observed when I rented the lens.

If the new Sigma has the same optical design as its predecessor than it will not be a 120-300 lens, but something in the 260ish range. This is an enormous lens and the gain of 60 - 70 mm compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 to me would not justify the money and the weight. If it has actually 290 mm at its longer end and can maintain or surpass the optical quality of its predecessor than one could say another opportunity missed by Canon.

What is this lens? I thought they already had a lens that was 120-300 2.8 with OS? I have the 120-300 2.8 non OS and I know there was already a newer version out? I'm very confused....

Same new version with a very few changes...

It seems likely for them to share the same optics, but do you know that for a fact or have you just heard it somewhere?

Also, from dpreview, "With a new dust- and splash-proof design, this lens will also have a focus limiter, which incorporates inner focusing and zooming that does not require a change to the length of the lens for focus and zoom. Sigma and Canon mounts will be available in February, and Nikon mounts will arrive in March. For the full press release, click here. The 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM will be available for the street price of $3,599."

So it seems more weather sealed aswell, I like that for my agriculture photography.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 01:38:39 PM by The Bad Duck »

Logged

AdamJ

My understanding is that the optical design of this lens is unchanged (other than the welcome inclusion of a focus limiter switch). It apparently was always a good lens optically so the better QC and customisability can only be welcome.

The price of this lens and the 17-70mm will be a marker for Sigma's more interesting lenses that it chooses to re-engineer, such as the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

giotto

I´m shooting in sports. The big advantage of this lens is the zoom-range with an aperture of 2,8. I often stand in a fixed position whith a lot of other photografers around me, unable to move and in this situation a zoom is really top. In such moments I use the EF 2,8 70-200 USM IS II with both tc (1,4 / 2,0). The sigma lens would be very interesting if the iq is at the same as the canon-zoom -- especially when using a tc. In earlier times I tested serveral sigma zooms (the sigma 120-300 too) and the iq of the pure lens was ok, but when using a tc it becomes bad and no more usable and so it was no more interesting for me.I´m hoping that the iq now ist better than all earlier versions especially when using a tc. Such a lens I would buy for 3500,- € and save 3000,- against the canon 2,8 300 IS II. I`ll wait for the tests and images, then I will rent the lens and then I will see it the lens is worth the money. For a lens with only "good" image-quality I wouldn`t pay so much money. In such case I will save it and buy next year the canon superlens (2,8 / 300 II)

I want to love this lens. But how many editions of this lens have come out in total?, in just the past few years? Am I the only one worried by that? It seems like they keep trying to get this lens right.

Granted nobody makes exactly the same lens combination, but B&H is listing this lens for $3599 on pre-order! But you can get a 70-200 f28 IS II (one of the best lenses in the world), and a 1.4X III extender for $2393. Or about $1200 less. How good does it have to be to be worth not getting the Canon?

I suppose compared to a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II, it seems cheap, and it zooms. I will wait for the reviews...